A recent case involved a fight that broke out at the Commodore,a dance hall.During a break in the music,the master of ceremonies was attacked.When the Commodore's security team failed to appear,the plaintiff,Mr.Jeffrey,a patron,joined other patrons who intervened.Jeffrey was hit from behind with a chair and punched in the jaw.He sued Commodore Cabaret Ltd.,the company that managed the premises and entertainment,on these facts.Which of the following is false?
A)The company has a duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act to take reasonable steps to ensure that patrons are reasonably safe.
B)If the defendant argued and the court found that Jeffrey was contributorily negligent,Jeffrey would receive some damages for compensation.
C)Jeffrey could have successfully sued the person who punched him in the jaw for the tort of negligence.
D)Jeffrey's cause of action against the company could be framed in negligence because he could argue that the company owed him a duty of care,fell below the standard of care,and caused him foreseeable damage.
E)If the defendant argued and the court found that Jeffrey had volunteered to take both the physical and the legal risk,Jeffrey would lose and receive no damages.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

EC) The tort of negligence requires a breach of a duty of care that causes foreseeable harm. The act of punching someone in the jaw is more accurately described as battery, a form of intentional tort, rather than negligence.E) The defense of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) could apply if Jeffrey knowingly and voluntarily accepted both the physical and legal risks involved. However, this does not automatically mean he would lose and receive no damages. The application of this defense depends on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances, including whether Jeffrey truly had full knowledge and understanding of the risks.

A Recent Case Involved a Fight That Broke Out at the Commodore,a